ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2024
A review of antimicrobial stability testing guidance for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy programmes: is it time for global harmonization of testing frameworks?
Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy in Asia: Evolution, Models, and Challenges over the Past Decade-A Narrative Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 2026 Updated good practice recommendations for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in adults and children in the UK.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- Continuous infusion OPAT via elastomeric pumps: effectiveness, safety, and cost-saving potential in a real-world Italian cohort.Infection · 2026Article
- ML-Driven Pharmaceutical Cocrystal Technology: Advances in Screening, Property Prediction and Applications.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Review
- Article
- Curcumin in oral health: mechanisms, clinical evidence, and delivery strategies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antimicrobial stability is an important consideration for treatment planning and service delivery in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) programmes. Regulation of stability assessment varies by region, and conflicting guidance and standards exist. This leads to disparity of equity in access and limits availability of certain antimicrobials for managing infections in the outpatient setting. This review discusses the degree to which the international regulatory bodies have reached consensus on the regulation of antimicrobial stability testing, specifically for OPAT, and describes the variation in antimicrobial recommendations across regulatory bodies. The three major findings in this review are (i) variation in antimicrobial stability testing guidance, particularly in relation to temperature; (ii) lack of regulatory guidance, specifically in that some regions did not have OPAT guidelines; and (iii) only the UK's NHS has provided non-regulatory OPAT-specific advice on antimicrobial stability testing. In conclusion, harmonization of antimicrobial stability testing to form a global OPAT-specific regulatory framework, particularly considering 'areas of variation' amongst current guidance, is required. We call for the development of a global OPAT antimicrobial stability testing framework with consensus from accepted antimicrobial stability criteria, expert opinion and pharmacopoeial best practice.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.